4.6 Article

Aqueous and Nonaqueous Sodium-Air Cells with Nanoporous Gold Cathode

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 182, 期 -, 页码 809-814

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2015.09.153

关键词

Na-air/Na-O-2 batteries; Solid electrolyte; Nonaqueous and aqueous electrolytes; Nanoporous gold; Ambient atmosphere

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [26289235]
  2. Elements Strategy Initiative to Form Core Research Center, MEXT, Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26289235] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two types of sodium-air cells, i.e., nonaqueous and mixed aqueous-nonaqueous (abbreviated as 'aqueous') cells, have been compared to elucidate factors limiting performances of nonaqueous air cells and how the aqueous electrolyte is effective to reliving these limitation. The two cells have the same configuration consisting of a nanoporous gold (NPG) air electrode and a ceramic separator of fast sodium ion conductor, NASICON. Only the selection of catholyte, either alkyl carbonate-based nonaqueous solution of NaClO4 or aqueous solution of NaOH, is different. All performances are demonstrated to be better for the aqueous one. Lower overpotential of aqueous cell leads to better round-trip efficiency. A large resistance relevant to oxygen reduction reaction in the nonaqueous cell is relieved by changing the catholyte to the aqueous electrolyte, affording higher rate capability and power density. The aqueous electrolyte is also effective to remove the limitation of the discharge capacity defined by the volumetric amount of air electrode, as has been claimed in previous studies on aqueous Na-air cells. Furthermore, the aqueous cell is demonstrated to be robust and less sensitive and to atmosphere. The NPG electrode works reversibly in the half-cell reaction of the aqueous cell, while an electrodeposition of metallic Na on the anode during charging requires an improvement. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据